Posts

Having read through a number of Descartes works, I am struck by what seems to be a difficulty in his reasoning process. Roughly put his reasoning goes something as follows (please note this is in summary form): 1.Knowledge (science or Truth) is that which is indubitable, being clearly and distinctly perceived. 2.If knowledge is defined as in premise one, then in order to discover truth one simply doubt all that is not indubitable, which is not clearly and distinctly perceived. 3.We can doubt all that we thought we knew, except for one thing, that we are doubting. 4.I doubt, and therefore I exist. (Or in his more famous phrase, I think, therefore I am – Cogito ergo sum) 5.That “I think” is the clearest and most distinct truth I can know. 6.I am aware of imperfections. 7.The fact that I am aware of imperfections seems to necessitate that I have an idea of perfection. 8.This idea of perfection can only come from (a) my own mind, (b) the world that my senses appear to perceive, or (c) from a…

In his short treatise On Being and Essence, Thomas Aquinas says “A slight error eventually grows to vast proportions, according to the Philosopher.”[1] The philosopher referred to is Aristotle, and the quote referred to is found in De Caelo, book I, “So it has been and so it must be; since the least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold...The reason is that a principle is great rather in power than in extent.”[2] This would seem to be true regardless of the branch of studies. If we make an error in the principles of our philosophy, then, though we may stumble upon some truths, our system, as a whole, will be unstable and erroneous. How then do we make sure that we are starting from the right principles? Socrates, in the Phaedo, offered his method of finding truth, “However, I started in this manner: taking as my hypothesis in each case the theory that seemed to me the most compelling, I would consider as true, about cause and everything else, whatever agr…